- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dahyabhai Girdhardas v. Bobaji Dahyaji Kotwal
Factual and Procedural Background
The suit was originally filed in the Court of the Nyayadhish at Ghodasar. The plaint was signed by the plaintiff's son, Vadilal Dayabhai, described as a Kulmukhtyar. After merger the suit was transferred to the Civil Judge at Kaira. The plaintiff applied to amend the plaint by striking off his son's signature and being permitted to sign himself, because he realised his son had no proper authority to sign. The learned Judge dismissed the amendment application. The plaintiff filed this revision against that order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether failure to sign the plaint properly is a material defect that means no suit was properly instituted.
- Whether failure to sign the plaint properly is a formal defect curable by amendment (including where limitation might otherwise apply).
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Chunilal Bhagwanji v. Kanmal Lalchand | Held by Sir John Beaumont that a person acting under a power-of-attorney (here by a next friend of a minor) who signed the plaint had no authority; the plaint was not valid and the suit was never properly instituted; defect could not be cured by amendment and plaintiff should file a fresh plaint. | The Court analysed and rejected this view as erroneous in light of other authorities, noting the Chief Justice had not considered earlier decisions and did not cite authorities; the Court did not follow Beaumont on this point. |
| Nanjibhai v. Popatlal | Held by Mr. Justice Mirza that a plaint filed within time but not properly signed can be allowed to be signed later by the plaintiff irrespective of the bar of limitation; the munim had signed without general power-of-attorney and amendment was allowed. | The Court preferred and followed Mr. Justice Mirza's judgment, applying its principle to permit amendment of the plaint. |
| Mohini Mohun Das v. Bungsi Buddan Saha Das | Privy Council held that one co-plaintiff's failure to sign and verify was immaterial where no rule made a co-plaintiff a plaintiff only by signing; treated as a formal error not vitiating institution of the suit. | The Court relied on this decision as supportive of the view that failure to sign is a formal error and not a defect going to the root of institution of the suit. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court considered two lines of authority: Sir John Beaumont's view in Chunilal Bhagwanji v. Kanmal Lalchand that lack of proper authority to sign renders the plaint invalid and the suit never instituted, and Mr. Justice Mirza's view in Nanjibhai v. Popatlal (supported by the Privy Council in Mohini Mohun Das v. Bungsi Buddan Saha Das) that failure to sign is a formal defect curable by amendment even if limitation might otherwise bar a fresh plaint. The Court noted that Beaumont did not cite authorities nor consider Nanjibhai. The Court regarded the Privy Council decision as treating non-signature by a co-plaintiff as immaterial, indicating a formal rather than fundamental defect. Preferring Mr. Justice Mirza's reasoning and the Privy Council's position over Beaumont's, the Court concluded the defect here was curable and should be remedied by amendment. The Court therefore set aside the lower court's order and directed allowance of the amendment.
Holding and Implications
Order set aside; the plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint by striking out the signature of his son and to sign the plaint himself.
Direct effect: the lower court's refusal to allow the amendment is overturned and the plaintiff may correct the plaint. The Court expressed preference for the authority of Nanjibhai v. Popatlal and the Privy Council in Mohini Mohun Das over Chunilal Bhagwanji v. Kanmal Lalchand. No order as to costs was made.
Chagla, C.J:—
The suit out of which this revision application arises was filed in the Court of the Nyayadhish at Ghodasar and the plaint was signed by the plaintiff's son Vadilal Dayabhai and he was described as a Kulmukhtyar. After merger the suit was transferred to the Civil Judge at Kaira. The plaintiff then applied for an amendment of the plaint by striking off the signature of his son and by being permitted to sign the plaint. The plaintiff realised that his son had no proper authority to sign the plaint and that was the reason for this application for amendment. The learned Judge dismissed the application, and it is from that order that this revision application is preferred.
Now, there are two decisions of this Court to which my attention has been drawn bearing on the question as to whether failure to sign the plaint properly is such a material defect that the Court would be entitled to say that in the absence of a plaint being properly signed there is no suit before the Court at all, or whether the failure to sign the plaint properly is merely a formal defect which can be cured at any stage on a proper application being made to that effect. The former view has been taken by Sir John Beaumont in Chunilal Bhagwanji v. Kanmal Lalchand. In that case a person acting under a power-of-attorney executed by a next friend of a minor presented a plaint and signed it, and the learned Chief Justice held that he had no authority to do so and that the plaint was not a valid plaint. The learned Chief Justice further held that the suit was never properly instituted, and that a defect of that sort could not be cured by amendment, and the natural course open to the plaintiff was to file a fresh plaint. With respect, the learned Chief Justice did not consider an earlier decision of this Court in Nanjibhai v. Popatlal. As a matter of fact no authorities whatever were cited before the learned Chief Justice. Turning to the other judgment of this Court in Nanjibhai v. Popatlal, Mr. Justice Mirza there held that a plaint filed within time can, if not properly signed, be allowed to be signed by the plaintiff at a later stage irrespective of the bar of limitation. There the munim of the plaintiff had signed the plaint without having a general power-of-attorney and the plaint was not therefore properly signed, and the learned Judge allowed the plaint to be amended. There is a judgment of the Privy Council which also perhaps throws some light on this matter, and that is Mohini Mohun Das v. Bungsi Buddan Saha Das. In that case the suit was by three co-plaintiffs, and one of the points urged before the Privy Council was that the plaint was signed and verified by one plaintiff alone, and the answer given in the judgment of the Privy Council was that was immaterial as there was no rule providing that a person named as a co-plaintiff is not to be treated as a plaintiff unless he signs and verifies the plaint. The rule requiring a plaint to be signed applies to all the plaintiffs, and if the Privy Council thought that the failure of one of the co-plaintiffs to sign the plaint was immaterial, it clearly shows that the Privy Council considered this a merely formal error and not a serious defect which went to the root of the matter and which vitiated the whole institution of the suit to such an extent that the Court must consider that the suit was not properly instituted at all. If Sir John Beaumont was right in the view that he took, then the suit before the Privy Council was never instituted as far as the co-plaintiffs were concerned. Therefore, with very great respect, in my opinion the learned Chief Justice was in error in the view that he took. Ordinarily I would have been bound by his judgment as a judgment of co-ordinate authority, but there is the judgment of Mr. Justice Mirza and also the judgment of the Privy Council to which I have referred. With respect I prefer the judgment of Mr. Justice Mirza in Nanjibhai v. Popatlal.
I, therefore, set aside the order passed by the learned Judge below and direct that he should allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint by striking out the signature of the plaintiff's son and allowing the plaintiff to sign the plaint. No order as to costs.
Order set aside.
K.B.S
Alert